12 ms·

melanoma , unlike the others, has a much weaker link to sun exposure. its why melanoma often appear in areas with no sun exposure

addisonl 2mo ago
Misleading comment. From https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.35463 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.35463 > Cutaneous melanoma (CM) accounted for around 331,700 cancer cases globally in 2022 > An estimated 267,353 (95% uncertainty intervals [UI]: 242,818, 278,638) CM cases were UVR attributable globally in 2022 UVR = Ultraviolet radiation Cutaneous melanoma (CM) is the vast majority of melanoma cases in the US at least: > The percentages of melanomas that were cutaneous, ocular, mucosal, and unknown primaries were 91.2%, 5.2%, 1.3%, and 2.2%, from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9781962/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9781962/ tl;dr ~80% of Cutaneous melanoma cases are attributable to UV exposure.
- bonsai_spool 2mo ago
  Please be careful and charitable in reading others' words, especially as they relate to scientific topics. OP did not say that melanoma has no sun exposure risk but that it is lower than the risks associated with other cutaneous cancers (e.g., SCC and BCC) and it would seem that's true based on the very short search I performed. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5742376/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5742376/
  - HedonicEscal8r 2mo ago
    Yes, but OP said that in response to a comment attributing melanoma to sun exposure, in a conversation where nobody had brought up SCC or BCC. It's still a misleading comment, in my opinion.
    - pessimizer 2mo ago
      > Yes, but OP said that in response to a comment attributing melanoma to sun exposure, in a conversation where nobody had brought up SCC or BCC. In a thread about a trial for a melanoma drug, which has nothing to do with the discussion of sunscreen. Sunscreen was brought up because it is a culture-war topic, the fact that melanomas are not as associated with sun exposure was brought up as the standard opposite-side reply to a culture-war topic. Clearly your unrelated accusation was brought up to silence the other side and accuse them of dishonesty. Your follow-up is to accuse them of some conversational violation (mentioning something that wasn't brought up) which doesn't exist. It's fine to see debate, but this is not debate. At most, consistent daily sunscreen use is associated with a 30-50% reduction in melanoma, and some of the ingredients in US sunscreens are themselves associated with cancer. What would be helpful is a link to a study showing a general reduction in melanomas during a general increase in the use of sunscreen. I'd be able to point that out to friends who questioned me about the efficacy of using it. edit: that one sentence reply is already trying to snowball into a pile on. Now to mention this fact has become "bizarre." Can't wait until it becomes "unhinged."
      - john_strinlai 2mo ago
        >Clearly your unrelated accusation was brought up to silence the other side and accuse them of dishonesty. Your follow-up is to accuse them of some conversational violation (mentioning something that wasn't brought up) which doesn't exist. the comment you are replying to is HedonicEscal8r's first comment in this comment chain. >that one sentence reply is already trying to snowball into a pile on no... it is correcting your comment that is accusing HedonicEscal8r of having multiple comments in this chain. HedonicEscal8r was not the one to make the comment that you describe as an "unrelated accusation" to "silence the other side". common courtesy would be to say "oops, i didn't read the usernames, my bad" instead of accusing someone else entirely of "trying to snowball into a pile on" for calling you out on the mistake.
        deleted 2mo ago
        [deleted]
        john_strinlai 2mo ago
  - pigeof 2mo ago
    The criticism and correction were polite, helpful, and appropriate. The original comment is misleading. Your reply is bizarre, and seems to deliberately misread the original comment, the reply, and the context.
    - bonsai_spool 2mo ago
      > misread the original comment By pointing out that it is true using a reference? > the reply The reply misunderstood the first comment and went on to discuss something a)interesting but b) not germane to whether melanoma is the skin cancer with the highest sun exposure risk. I have no idea what you mean by context as this small discussion is quite self-contained. Think of this as making sure everyone realizes two homophones actually are distinct words.
    - jjk166 2mo ago
      The criticism was both impolite and against HN rules. The reply was reiterating HN rules, as well as adding data supporting the original statement.

addisonl 2mo ago

Misleading comment. From https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.35463 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.35463 > Cutaneous melanoma (CM) accounted for around 331,700 cancer cases globally in 2022 > An estimated 267,353 (95% uncertainty intervals [UI]: 242,818, 278,638) CM cases were UVR attributable globally in 2022 UVR = Ultraviolet radiation Cutaneous melanoma (CM) is the vast majority of melanoma cases in the US at least: > The percentages of melanomas that were cutaneous, ocular, mucosal, and unknown primaries were 91.2%, 5.2%, 1.3%, and 2.2%, from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9781962/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9781962/ tl;dr ~80% of Cutaneous melanoma cases are attributable to UV exposure.

bonsai_spool 2mo ago
Please be careful and charitable in reading others' words, especially as they relate to scientific topics. OP did not say that melanoma has no sun exposure risk but that it is lower than the risks associated with other cutaneous cancers (e.g., SCC and BCC) and it would seem that's true based on the very short search I performed. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5742376/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5742376/
- HedonicEscal8r 2mo ago
  Yes, but OP said that in response to a comment attributing melanoma to sun exposure, in a conversation where nobody had brought up SCC or BCC. It's still a misleading comment, in my opinion.
  - pessimizer 2mo ago
    > Yes, but OP said that in response to a comment attributing melanoma to sun exposure, in a conversation where nobody had brought up SCC or BCC. In a thread about a trial for a melanoma drug, which has nothing to do with the discussion of sunscreen. Sunscreen was brought up because it is a culture-war topic, the fact that melanomas are not as associated with sun exposure was brought up as the standard opposite-side reply to a culture-war topic. Clearly your unrelated accusation was brought up to silence the other side and accuse them of dishonesty. Your follow-up is to accuse them of some conversational violation (mentioning something that wasn't brought up) which doesn't exist. It's fine to see debate, but this is not debate. At most, consistent daily sunscreen use is associated with a 30-50% reduction in melanoma, and some of the ingredients in US sunscreens are themselves associated with cancer. What would be helpful is a link to a study showing a general reduction in melanomas during a general increase in the use of sunscreen. I'd be able to point that out to friends who questioned me about the efficacy of using it. edit: that one sentence reply is already trying to snowball into a pile on. Now to mention this fact has become "bizarre." Can't wait until it becomes "unhinged."
    - john_strinlai 2mo ago
      >Clearly your unrelated accusation was brought up to silence the other side and accuse them of dishonesty. Your follow-up is to accuse them of some conversational violation (mentioning something that wasn't brought up) which doesn't exist. the comment you are replying to is HedonicEscal8r's first comment in this comment chain. >that one sentence reply is already trying to snowball into a pile on no... it is correcting your comment that is accusing HedonicEscal8r of having multiple comments in this chain. HedonicEscal8r was not the one to make the comment that you describe as an "unrelated accusation" to "silence the other side". common courtesy would be to say "oops, i didn't read the usernames, my bad" instead of accusing someone else entirely of "trying to snowball into a pile on" for calling you out on the mistake.
      - deleted 2mo ago
        [deleted]
      - john_strinlai 2mo ago
- pigeof 2mo ago
  The criticism and correction were polite, helpful, and appropriate. The original comment is misleading. Your reply is bizarre, and seems to deliberately misread the original comment, the reply, and the context.
  - bonsai_spool 2mo ago
    > misread the original comment By pointing out that it is true using a reference? > the reply The reply misunderstood the first comment and went on to discuss something a)interesting but b) not germane to whether melanoma is the skin cancer with the highest sun exposure risk. I have no idea what you mean by context as this small discussion is quite self-contained. Think of this as making sure everyone realizes two homophones actually are distinct words.
  - jjk166 2mo ago
    The criticism was both impolite and against HN rules. The reply was reiterating HN rules, as well as adding data supporting the original statement.